What this is
What is an x-ray inspection verification?
What is an x-ray inspection verification?
It is a challenge test proving an x-ray detection system still finds and rejects a contaminant of the size and density it is designed to catch. A test piece of known composition is passed through the machine, in product, at the position the machine finds hardest, and the record confirms both detection and that the reject mechanism physically removed the pack.
Why does x-ray detection exist alongside metal detection?
Metal detectors are effectively blind to glass, stone, bone and dense plastic. X-ray responds to density difference instead, catching what a metal detector cannot. Sites running both are closing each other's gap, not duplicating cover.
What does worst case position mean for an x-ray test piece?
The position and orientation where the machine's sensitivity is lowest, usually the centre of the densest part of the product and the leading or trailing edge on a moving belt. A verification run anywhere easier than that overstates the system's real sensitivity.
Scope
When is a x-ray inspection verification required?
This template verifies one piece of detection equipment against its own test pieces. It is not the record for equipment it sits beside, or for what happens after a fail.
Use this template when
- An x-ray detection system is in use on a line, at start up, changeover, periodically during the run or at end of run
- The HACCP plan names x-ray as a critical control point with a defined verification interval
- A new product, pack format or belt position changes where the worst case position sits
- The reject mechanism, settings or recipe on the machine has been changed or reset
- A verification is due following a failed check, once corrective action has been taken
Do not use it for
- Metal Detection Check, which challenges a metal detector's own sensitivity with ferrous, non-ferrous and stainless test pieces, not the density-based pieces an x-ray system uses
- Sieve and Filter Integrity Check, which confirms a physical mesh or filter barrier is intact, a different control mechanism to an electronic detection system
- Blade and Sharps Accountability Record, which accounts for issued sharps rather than verifying detection equipment
- Foreign Body Trend Review, which looks across repeated findings for a common source rather than verifying one machine on one day
- Routine equipment calibration or engineering PPM, which belongs with maintenance records even where it touches the same machine
Compliance mapping
Which BRCGS cl.4.10 requirements does this satisfy?
BRCGS treats foreign body detection equipment as a single clause covering the equipment, its verification and the response to a failure, leaving the choice of test piece and interval to the site's HACCP-based justification.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Detection equipment challenged with test pieces of the type and size specified in the food safety plan | Test pieces |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Test pieces in date, undamaged and of the correct sizes for the product and hazard | Test pieces |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Detection challenged in product, at the position representing worst case sensitivity | Test pieces |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Reject mechanism confirmed to physically remove the detected pack, not just to alarm | Machine condition |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Documented action on failure, including product held back to the last successful check | Outcome |
| Codex Alimentarius CAC/RCP 1-1969, HACCP Annex | Monitoring and verification procedures defined for a critical control point, with records demonstrating it was under control | Header |
| 21 CFR 1020.40 | Cabinet x-ray system interlocks, warning labelling and radiation survey maintained as a performance standard for the enclosure | Machine condition |
What it does not cover
- Metal Detection Check, which verifies a metal detector's own rejection using ferrous, non-ferrous and stainless test pieces, not the density-based pieces this template covers.
- Sieve and Filter Integrity Check, which confirms a physical mesh or filter barrier is intact, a different mechanism entirely to an x-ray system.
- The site's ionising radiation risk assessment and dosimetry programme, which governs occupational exposure separately from a per-shift verification.
- The hold and disposition record, which is raised once a verification fails and product is put at risk, referenced here only by its ID.
- Root cause investigation of a repeated finding, which belongs in the Foreign Body Trend Review and the linked CAPA record.
Global
X-Ray Inspection Verification requirements by country
Detection verification is a certification-scheme requirement almost everywhere it is run, but where the equipment is a radiation source the regulatory reach extends well beyond food safety.
21 CFR 1020.40; FDA FSMA 21 CFR 117 hazard analysis
The cabinet x-ray system is a regulated radiation-emitting product with its own federal performance standard, separate from the food safety plan naming it as a control.
A site can pass the detection challenge and still be non-compliant on the interlocks, label or survey the cabinet is required to carry.
Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017; BRCGS cl.4.10
IRR17 governs the equipment as a radiation source with its own registration and dose assessment, while BRCGS governs detection performance.
A radiation protection adviser's inspection is a separate line of assurance this checklist does not replace.
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety; GFSI Benchmarking Requirements
GFSI-recognised schemes converge on the same substance: specified test pieces, a worst case challenge, and a defined response to failure.
A verification built to this substance transfers with minor relabelling to a different GFSI scheme.
How to complete it
How to complete a x-ray inspection verification, step by step
The template prompts for a pass or fail. What makes the record defensible are the judgement calls the form cannot make for the person running the test.
Worst case position is usually the densest part of the product and the leading or trailing edge on a belt, and it changes with pack format. Running the same convenient position every time produces a record of consistent success that says nothing about the day the profile is different.
A machine that alarms but does not physically remove the pack has failed the thing this template exists to prove. Detection without a confirmed reject is a machine that finds the contaminant and sends it to a customer anyway.
The correct response to a failed verification is holding product back to the last confirmed good check, the only honest statement of what was actually verified during the run. Retesting and moving on without the hold answers the wrong question.
Interlocks, signage and survey currency do not degrade in step with detection sensitivity, and a site only looking at them when detection fails will find they have quietly gone overdue. They sit in the same record because they are checked at the same visit.
What auditors find
Most common x-ray inspection verification findings
Findings against this template rarely concern whether the check happened. They concern whether the challenge run could actually have detected a real event.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Test piece run on the surface of the pack or beside it rather than inside the product. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Require the piece inside the product at the position set by the plan, and record which position was used. |
| Detection confirmed but no record that the reject was physically confirmed in the bin. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Make reject confirmation a required field distinct from detection, checked at the time of test. |
| Product not held back to the last good check following a failed verification. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Apply the hold automatically on any fail, and require a hold reference before the record can close. |
| Machine settings not confirmed against the approved recipe for the product running. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Check settings against the approved recipe at every changeover, before production resumes. |
| Radiation survey overdue or interlocks not tested at the stated frequency. | 21 CFR 1020.40 | Schedule the radiation survey and interlock test independently of the verification calendar. |
| Verification run at a frequency looser than the HACCP plan specifies for this control point. | Codex Alimentarius CAC/RCP 1-1969, HACCP Annex | Set the interval from the HACCP plan directly, and flag any run outside it as a deviation. |
Case in point
Case in point: the pass that never tested the worst case
A cooked meats site ran hourly x-ray verifications on a sliced ham line, taping the glass and stone test pieces to the top of the finished pack because it was faster than reinserting one inside the product. Every check passed for months, showing a clean run of detections and confirmed rejects.
A customer complaint described a stone fragment found in a pack from that line. Rerunning the verification with the piece embedded at the true worst case position, in the densest slice stack, the machine failed to detect it. The taped-on checks had never once tested the condition the fragment had actually travelled through.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
6 sections
- Reference
- QUA-101
- Archetype
- Checklist
- Record ID
- XRV-2026-000
- Scoring
- Verification pass rate
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- BRCGS cl.4.10
- Links
- Links HACCP, Holds
- Tags
- Foreign body, X-ray
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 57
- Follow up fields
- 6
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
16 fieldsVerification ID*
Auto sequence. Format XRV-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Line*
Shift*
Line Lead
Batch Number*
Numeric key joining to your ERP batch record.
Links to External system reference
Product*
Production Date*
Test In Product, At The Worst Position
A test piece taped to the outside of a pack proves nothing. It must be inside the product, at the position and orientation the machine finds hardest.
Machine Reference*
Verification Point*
Verified By*
Test pieces
6 fieldsTest Piece Sizes Used*
Sizes Match HACCP Requirement*
- Yes3 pts
- Larger than required0 pts
- No0 pts
Test Pieces In Date And Undamaged*
- Yes3 pts
- Worn1 pt
- Damaged0 pts
Test Piece Inside Product*
- Yes3 pts
- On the surface1 pt
- Beside the pack0 pts
Worst Case Position Used*
Usually the centre of the densest part, and the leading or trailing edge on a belt.
- Yes3 pts
- Uncertain1 pt
- No0 pts
All Orientations Tested
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Results
Repeats6 fieldsContaminant Type*
Ferrous, non ferrous, stainless steel, glass, stone, bone or dense plastic.
Size*
Detected*
- Yes3 pts
- Intermittent0 pts
- No0 pts
Rejected Correctly*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Reject Confirmed In Reject Bin*
Detection without a confirmed reject is a machine that alarms and lets the product through.
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Attempts Needed
Machine condition
9 fieldsReject Mechanism Working*
- Yes3 pts
- Intermittent0 pts
- No0 pts
Reject Bin Locked And Controlled*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Fail Safe On Reject Failure*
- Line stops4 pts
- Alarm only1 pt
- None0 pts
Belt Clean And Aligned*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Settings Match Approved Product Recipe*
- Yes3 pts
- Uncertain1 pt
- No0 pts
Settings Password Protected*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Radiation Safety Interlocks Working*
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Radiation Warning Signs Present*
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Radiation Survey In Date*
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Outcome
7 fieldsAll Tests Passed*
- Yes3 pts
- Some failed0 pts
Machine Released For Production*
- Yes3 pts
- Held0 pts
Downgrade To Last Good Check*
A failed verification puts everything back to the last passing check on hold. That is the point of frequent checks.
- Not required3 pts
- Applied2 pts
- Not applied0 pts
Product Back To Last Good Check At Risk*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Quantity Affected
Hold ID
Raise the hold record, then enter its reference.
Links to QUA-003 Hold ID
Product Location
Where the affected product physically is right now.
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Operator*
Signature*
Quality*
Second Signature*
QUA-101 · record IDs look like XRV-2026-000 · Links HACCP, Holds
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The verification is a five-minute test. What fails around it is settings drifting after a changeover, a survey going quiet, and a hold that does not happen when it should.
Holds the schedule against the HACCP plan's interval, flags a check at the wrong frequency, and links a failed result to the hold record.
Tracks the radiation survey and interlock test as maintenance-owned tasks, independent of a verification finding a problem first.
Keeps the BRCGS cl.4.10 evidence pack current for audit, including test piece certificates and the machine's sensitivity spec.
Watches for the same easy worst case position repeating on a product and flags it for review before an auditor or complaint does.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
X-Ray Inspection Verification definitions and key terms
- Worst case position
- The position and orientation within the product where detection sensitivity is lowest, usually the centre of the densest section and the leading or trailing edge on a belt.
- Fail-safe
- The behaviour a system defaults to when the reject mechanism itself fails, such as stopping the line, a stronger control than an alarm a human may miss.
- Reject confirmation
- Physical verification that a detected pack was actually removed from the product stream, distinct from the machine having alarmed.
- Cabinet x-ray system
- A self-shielded x-ray unit enclosing source and detector, regulated as a radiation-emitting product independently of the food safety scheme specifying its use.
- Sensitivity
- The smallest contaminant of a given type and density the system can reliably detect, established by challenge testing, not assumed from the spec sheet.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about x-ray inspection verification
Why test with a piece inside the product instead of on the belt?+
Surrounding product density attenuates the x-ray signal, so a piece run on an empty belt or taped to the pack is tested under conditions easier than any real production run. Only a piece inside the product at the worst case position tells you what the machine would do with a real contaminant.
Do we still need a metal detector if we have x-ray?+
Usually yes. X-ray is strong on glass, stone, bone and dense plastic, but metal detectors stay more sensitive to very fine ferrous and non-ferrous contamination in some matrices. Most sites run both because each closes a gap the other has.
What counts as a confirmed reject?+
Physical evidence the detected pack left the product stream, checked in the reject bin at the time of test, not just an alarm on the screen. Detection without a confirmed reject means the machine found the contaminant and let it through anyway.
How far back should product be held after a failed check?+
To the last verification that passed, the last point detection was actually demonstrated to work. Everything since then was made under an unverified system.
Who should complete the radiation safety fields on this record?+
The operator can confirm interlocks and signage during the routine check, but survey currency should track the schedule set by whoever holds the radiation protection function, since that survey has its own regulatory basis.
How often should the worst case position be reviewed?+
Whenever product, pack format or belt configuration changes. A worst case position for one pack size does not transfer to another, and running the old position after a change tests a condition that no longer exists.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Foreign Body Control
Metal Detection Check
Confirms the metal detector rejects test pieces at the required sensitivity
Sieve and Filter Integrity Check
Checks sieves, filters and magnets for damage, correct aperture and secure fitting, and records what was retained
Blade and Sharps Accountability Record
Accounts for every blade, needle, cutter and sharp issued into a production area and returned at shift end
Wood and Pallet Control Check
Checks that wood, wooden pallets and similar materials are excluded or controlled in production areas
Foreign Body Trend Review
Reviews foreign body findings and complaints over a period to identify the source rather than treating each one alone
Foreign Body Awareness Training
Covers the sources of foreign body on this site, what to do when one is found and why the search matters more than the finding
More in Foreign Body Control
Sieve and Filter Integrity Check
Checks sieves, filters and magnets for damage, correct aperture and secure fitting, and records what was retained
Blade and Sharps Accountability Record
Accounts for every blade, needle, cutter and sharp issued into a production area and returned at shift end
Wood and Pallet Control Check
Checks that wood, wooden pallets and similar materials are excluded or controlled in production areas
Foreign Body Trend Review
Reviews foreign body findings and complaints over a period to identify the source rather than treating each one alone
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, clause 4.10, foreign body detection and control equipment
- Codex Alimentarius CAC/RCP 1-1969, HACCP System and Guidelines for its Application
- 21 CFR 1020.40, performance standard for cabinet x-ray systems
- Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 (UK)
- GFSI Benchmarking Requirements
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.